Who’s Afraid of Assimilation?

In Jewish education and policy circles, the typical attitude to assimilation is clear: it’s a bad thing. In fact, it’s often taken to be the thing that Jewish education is supposed to help us avoid. In other words, the assumption is that educating Jewish students “Jewishly” (setting aside what that might mean, for the moment) is counter-assimilatory.

Conversations about assimilation often use one of two metaphors. The first is a biological one: assimilation is a disease and education is the inoculation against that disease, or at least provides the healthy nutrients to strengthen the body against it. Stuart Charmé calls this a “drink-your-milk” model of Jewish education. The second metaphor is martial: assimilation is an assault and education is a defense against that assault. For example, Seymour Fox once asked whether Jewish education was succeeding as a “bulwark against assimilation.”

But what do we actually mean, when we use these metaphors? What’s the disease, exactly, and what’s the organism that is being threatened? What’s the assault, and what’s the fortified position? Both metaphors rely on dramatic oppositions between in and out, between Jewish and other – distinctions that no longer hold, regarding practices and ideas, and even regarding community. They assume a zero-sum model of identity and culture that is utterly alien to the lived experiences of contemporary Jews.

The questions become even more challenging when we consider the history of Jews and Judaism, which, like the history of everything else, is ever-changing. The effort to identify some eternal essence is questionable at best. Moreover, even if we were to do so – even if we propose, say, monotheism as the essence of Judaism, or if we focus on central Jewish practices like Shabbat and kashrut – we have to acknowledge that, whatever we mean by the “disease” or “assault” of assimilation, it really doesn’t have much to do with monotheism, Shabbat or kashrut at all.

About fifty years ago, the great Jewish historian Gerson Cohen reflected on these issues and arrived at the conclusion that assimilation is not a disease, and not an assault, but rather a blessing. He criticized the idea that Jewish survival and cultural vitality depend on what he called “tenacious adherence” to a tradition, arguing that closer attention to the historical record reveals the opposite to be true. Jewish survival and cultural vitality, in fact, have depended on the ability to assimilate new influences, to create new forms, that is, to adapt. And if the description of the past is not true, then the logic of the prescription – that Jewish survival in the future will be guaranteed only if Jews resist assimilation, i.e., only if they adhere tenaciously to traditional norms and forms – is undermined as well.

Of course, not all change is good. Not all adaptations are healthy. Not everything that makes us feel good in the short term is actually good for us, or for our culture, in the long run. Surely there is still a principled argument for maintaining a continuity of traditions, rather than (to borrow a phrase) re-inventing our cultural world anew every day. There is also a principled argument for employing Jewish language and concepts, even when we are arguing for cultural innovation. Most fundamentally, we ought to be forthright about our goal of a thriving Jewish communal and cultural future – which, while open to and engaged with the world and other communities and cultures, nevertheless remains distinctive.

What we need, therefore, is a way to distinguish the good kinds of changes from the unhelpful ones, the useful kinds of continuity from the slavish ones. We need this criterion for practical, educational purposes. We need to know what to teach and what not to teach, what kinds of practices to encourage and what kinds to discourage, and most fundamentally, how to envision our purposes in whatever educational settings we find ourselves in.

What would such a criterion look like? We know that it cannot simply demand maximal “tenacious adherence.” It cannot simply reject change or innovation or the assimilation of new influences from outside. Instead, we might look to thinkers like Ahad Ha’am, who, at the end of the 19thcentury, distinguished between hikui, “imitation,” a derivative kind of mimicry of others, lacking self-respect, leading nowhere, and genuine assimilation, which holds the potential for cultural renewal.

Building on this idea, we might propose that the criterion that distinguishes between the good kind of assimilation and the bad kind ought to be based on health or growth: Does a particular practice or idea lead to a flourishing individual or communal future? Does it open up more dynamic and creative cultural and spiritual possibilities than it forecloses?

This is challenging. We cannot predict the future. Did the assimilation of Aristotelian philosophy in Judaism in medieval Spain and North Africa lead to cultural flourishing? From our perspective now, the answer is surely yes – but at the time, there was robust debate about the matter. Does the assimilation of feminist ideology in 20th and 21st century American lead to greater spiritual possibilities for Judaism? A very significant portion of the contemporary Jewish community believes that it does – but for some segments of the community, the question is not settled. We might also consider the assimilation of food ethics, or non-Jewish musical forms, or nationalism. The examples are endless.

The discussion has focused on an analysis of social and cultural developments. But the implications for Jewish education are significant, because the binary opposition between assimilation and education – the simple idea that the purpose of Jewish education is to prevent assimilation – no longer works. The central educational questions have to shift.

Those who fear assimilation ask questions such as, “How can the (static) curriculum of Judaism be transmitted into the heads and hearts of these students?” or “How can these students be convinced to adhere tenaciously to (at least some of) the traditions and norms of Judaism?” But an attitude that recognizes the importance and necessity of assimilation has to ask, instead, “How should our educational interventions be constructed in order to promote a responsible, responsive, and vibrant Jewish future?” and “What should our pedagogy look like in order to cultivate the capacities, among students, to create that future for themselves?”

Keeping outside influences at bay, and using Jewish education to build fortresses for students or to inoculate them against those influences, will not maintain a healthy Jewish cultural community into the future. Instead, we ought to cultivate the capacities of individual Jews and entire communities to assimilate the best and most creative cultural and intellectual influences that they encounter, in ways that are responsive to the Jewish past as well as the Jewish future.

This post is derived from an academic article that treats the topic at greater length, “Rethinking the Education of Cultural Minorities to and from Assimilation: A Perspective from Jewish Education,” Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 7:1 (2013), 54-68.

Cross-posted on “Learning about Learning,” the blog of the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel Center for Studies in Jewish Education at Brandeis University.

Reader Interactions

Comments

Assimilation ought not be feared as it is the natural and eventual outcome of the influence of the North American melting pot on all immigrant groups that have arrived on our shores. Orthodoxies among some immigrant groups have been able to resist to some degree, but they remain a small minority.

You wrote: “…assumption is that educating Jewish students “Jewishly” (setting aside what that might mean, for the moment) is counter-assimilatory.”

Because you said ” for the moment” just above, I searched through the rest of your post in vain to find out what you mean by “educating students ‘Jewishly?'”
So what do you mean by “educating Jewish students “Jewishly?”
You later continued:

“Moreover, even if we were to do so – even if we propose, say, monotheism as the essence of Judaism, or if we focus on central Jewish practices like Shabbat and kashrut…”

These may be the essence and central practices of Orthodox Judaism but they are irrelevant to most Jews in North America if not in the world, who have rejected Orthodoxy. “For the moment” I’ll just say that the Judaism that’s needed is not this. You later wrote:

“Most fundamentally, we ought to be forthright about our goal of a thriving Jewish communal and cultural future – which, while open to and engaged with the world and other communities and cultures, nevertheless remains distinctive.”

What is your definition of the adjective “Jewish” as you use it above and throughout the rest of your post? You later wrote:

“…rather than (to borrow a phrase) re-inventing our cultural world anew every day.”

Ahh “Ha’m’hadesh b’khol yom ma’aseh v’reishit.” Freely translated, “The daily Renewer of the stuff of Creation.” This is God’s job. (S)He has the time. And because we are impermanent, we don’t. You later wrote:

“What we need, therefore, is a way to distinguish the good kinds of changes from the unhelpful ones..”

“Change alone is unchanging.” Heraclitus circa 500 b.c.e.
Impermanence is what is. The sooner we learn to embrace this concept the more healthy our responses can be. You later wrote:

“…the simple idea that the purpose of Jewish education is to prevent assimilation – no longer works. The central educational questions have to shift.”

Correct and for the moment I’ll stop here. You later wrote:

“Keeping outside influences at bay, and using Jewish education to build fortresses for students or to inoculate them against those influences, will not maintain a healthy Jewish cultural community into the future.”

Correct again, though I don’t know what you mean by “a healthy Jewish cultural community.”

The purpose of Judaism and non Orthodox Jewish education ought/needs to be (please imagine hearing a blast from the shofar) making Jewish mentsches.

Yeah..I’m using the nebulous to meaningless (among non Orthodox Jews) adjective “Jewish” just as you and others do in here, but I’ll offer a starting point for what needs to be done in order to begin to flesh out an acceptable non Orthodox definition.

Once again a loud blast from the shofar has been sounded. Answer the question, “Why Judaism?” There is no more important topic in need of teaching, addressing and discusing from the bimah by the Rabbi with more Jews in the pews than at any other time during the year.

Until this is done in a way that has the power to enter the minds and hearts of most North American Jews who have voted with their feet that the status quo has failed miserably, all else is futile. And instead of T’qi’ah G’dolah, Taps will continue to become more and more appropriate.

Biv’racha,
Jordan

Primary Sidebar

Join The Conversation

What's the best way to follow important issues affecting the Jewish philanthropic world?
Our Daily Update keeps you on top of the latest news, trends and opinions shaping the landscape, providing an invaluable source for inspiration and learning.